Former Apple SVP calls Forstall firing “deserved and justified”

Father of the iPod had his own run-ins with Forstall during iPhone development.

Apple let go of its polarizing head of iOS software engineering, Scott Forstall, last month amid claims that the engineer clashed with other executives and refused to take ownership of the faults in iOS 6 Maps. Former Apple SVP of iPod hardware engineering, Tony Fadell, told the BBC that Forstall got exactly what he deserved.

"I think what happened just a few weeks back was deserved and justified," Fadell said in an interview.

Fadell stepped down from his role as a senior vice president in late 2008, though he stayed on in a limited advisory role until 2010. At the time, Fadell said he and his wife Danielle Lambert, then-Apple VP of human resources, wanted to spend more time raising their young family.

Forstall apparently rubbed other top executives the wrong way as well. Both former SVP Bob Mansfield and SVP Jony Ive would not even sit in the same room with him for meetings. Mansfield's decision to come out of retirement and work on mobile technologies was said to be due in part to Apple CEO Tim Cook's decision to show Forstall the door.

"Scott got what he deserved," Fadell told the BBC. "If you read some of the reports, people were cheering in Cupertino when that event happened." (Some engineers who worked under Forstall apparently planned to go out for "celebratory drinks" after the announcement was made public.)

Fadell seemed quite pleased that his old nemesis was no longer at Apple, especially since he still holds nearly 78,000 shares in the company.

"So, I think Apple is in a great space," he said. "It has great products and there are amazing people at the company, and those people actually have a chance to have a firm footing now and continue the legacy Steve [Jobs] left."

I think Cook is doing the right thing by getting rid of people like Forstall. It is very bad for the company culture to have people like him there. When people do not enjoy the people around them it causes conflicts which ultimately affect business. Having a person like him in a power position like that was asking for trouble. Which I think is one of the reasons maps had so many issues.

Forstall wasn't fired because he was a jerk. There are plenty of a..holes thriving in corporations.

Of course he was.

Quote:

The broader question is: is Apple about to have a civil war caused by Job's power vacuum or was Forstall firing Tim Cook's way of asserting himself ?

Inquiring minds and all of that.

Maybe Cook is trying to create a functional business organization?

I think he meant assholes are kept as long as cost of asshole < benefit of asshole. The point being that Forstall was fired because he was no longer bringing value to the company. Assuming he is accountable for the recent versions of iOS and he really is the asshole everyone makes him out to be, I'd say that it is justified.

Before I get flamed, I'm not saying that the recent versions of iOS were bad, just that there wasn't much added benefit to them vs. the cost of maintaining a giant, polarizing asshole at the top.

I'd guess that Cook feels that Forstall's value was in building/creating iOS. Now that it is built and stable, Apple has captured that value. This changes the equation for Forstall since the benefit from him went down but he was still a giant, polarizing asshole.

Both former SVP Bob Mansfield and SVP Jony Ive would not even sit in the same room with him for meetings.

This would be insane if actually true. They hate him so much they won't even sit in meeting together? And that's allowed? They would have gotten rid of him months or years earlier if people literally wouldn't sit in the same room with him.

They say he has such a fraught relationship with other members of the executive team—including lead designer Jony Ive and Mac hardware chief Bob Mansfield—that they avoid meetings with him unless Tim Cook is present.

That's very different. It suggests that at least once Forstall said something significant to them privately and denied it later--maybe a promise, maybe an insult, whatever. In that case, they only will deal with him when Cook is around to hold him to what he says. Much more reasonable, and a reasonable way to deal with someone if he is in fact a liar, or insulting, but the still have to work with him.

Forstall wasn't fired because he was a jerk. There are plenty of a..holes thriving in corporations. ...

I would suggest that Forstall wasn't fired just because he was a jerk... but it was likely a contributing factor. People who are jerks can manage to keep their job as long as they're reasonably above average at accomplishing that job. Likewise, people who are ineffective at their job (but are also well liked by everyone around them) can sometimes fly under the radar and not lose their job, even in a layoff situation. But a jerk who is also ineffective? Sorry... but those people just have to go. Reading all of the myriad reports about Forstall has led me to believe that he was in this latter category.

And as sonolumi alluded, Steve Jobs was (by almost all accounts) a grade-A jerk himself... but quite frankly, he was also an incredible businessman with a singularly unmatched vision. He did more then just get the job done... he practically engineered the rise of the proverbial Phoenix. You don't fire a guy who can accomplish that... you give him his own personal jet, and whatever-the-heck else he asks for.

Huh, guy who didn't get along with Forstall thinks his firing was completely deserved. Imagine that.

Sarcasm aside, if even half the stories about Forstall that've been told since his departure are true, he obviously needed to go. Having that much contention among executives is not how you go about getting things done.

I think Cook is doing the right thing by getting rid of people like Forstall. It is very bad for the company culture to have people like him there. When people do not enjoy the people around them it causes conflicts which ultimately affect business. Having a person like him in a power position like that was asking for trouble. Which I think is one of the reasons maps had so many issues.

I'm not so sure about that. Even if it makes for a difficult work environment some companies do well when there is a lot of internal competition.

Forstall was at NeXT with Jobs, came with him to Apple, and did some pretty good with on the iOS... it could be that someone like Jobs was able to manage him better than Tim Cook was able to (e.g. Forstall might have had a very healthy respect for Jobs and not so much for Cook).

Steve Jobs had the same effect on some people over the first 10 years of his career. Then he spent a decade in exile from Apple, creating the also-ran computer company NeXT and honing skills as a strategist, marketer, and manager. Forstall may more closely resemble the early Jobs, scorching the earth behind him while retaining a remarkable ability to come out ahead.

Ten years ago, after graduating from Stanford, Forstall started at NeXT. In other words, he spent the first ten years of his career working at Jobs-founded companies. It will be interesting to see what he does over the next ten years. If Apple starts losing its way, I wouldn't be too surprised to see the board invite him back.

It is always a bit dangerous. Society and media seem to like the modern, slick, edge-less co-operation guy who never gets in a fight, gets along well with everybody else and in the end results in save consense mediocrity.

And there is no discussion these persons are the backbone of each company. Nevertheless if you really want to have a company that creates something special you need to have somebody (or a small group of people) who has a vision of the future and makes this happen even if he has to step on some toes.

Examples for these people are Steve Jobs, Bezos and hell even money crazy idiots like Larry Ellison. People can respect them but there will be many who do not like them.

Now no idea if Forstall was a good man or a bad man. You can be annoying, overbearing, and useless. But just because some people do not like somebody doesn't mean that he is bad to have them.

It is always a bit dangerous. Society and media seem to like the modern, slick, edge-less co-operation guy who never gets in a fight, gets along well with everybody else and in the end results in save consense mediocrity.

And there is no discussion these persons are the backbone of each company. Nevertheless if you really want to have a company that creates something special you need to have somebody (or a small group of people) who has a vision of the future and makes this happen even if he has to step on some toes.

Examples for these people are Steve Jobs, Bezos and hell even money crazy idiots like Larry Ellison. People can respect them but there will be many who do not like them.

Now no idea if Forstall was a good man or a bad man. You can be annoying, overbearing, and useless. But just because some people do not like somebody doesn't mean that he is bad to have them.

There's a difference between "stepping on toes" and people actually celebrating your dismissal. When people are going for drinks because you were fired, that's indicative of someone who's an asshole.

I think Cook is doing the right thing by getting rid of people like Forstall. It is very bad for the company culture to have people like him there. When people do not enjoy the people around them it causes conflicts which ultimately affect business. Having a person like him in a power position like that was asking for trouble. Which I think is one of the reasons maps had so many issues.

I'm not so sure about that. Even if it makes for a difficult work environment some companies do well when there is a lot of internal competition.

Forstall was at NeXT with Jobs, came with him to Apple, and did some pretty good with on the iOS... it could be that someone like Jobs was able to manage him better than Tim Cook was able to (e.g. Forstall might have had a very healthy respect for Jobs and not so much for Cook).

Interestingly there have been a number of psychological studies saying that people work better in some types of poor conditions (some people definitely work better under a certain level of stress for example, although there are diminishing returns when that stress-load exceeds their tolerance of it). There are also studies that say working in too "nice" an environment actually reduces productivity. So I don't think Forstall being a jerk was the reason they fired him, jerks *can* get things done, even if they do it in a more Machiavellian way. I think he got fired (correctly) because he royally fucked-up with iOS Maps. I think it sends the proper message that anyone working at Apple can (and will be) held accountable. I wish the government and major banks/investment companies worked the same way, but apparently they don't.

It also points to Cook's style as a manager. I think his style is to support his staff, rather than challenge them at every turn (which was Job's). It remains to be seen if this will work better at Apple or not. I can saying having worked in both environments I enjoyed the "support" style better and found it easier to get my job done and easier to get coordinated resources allocated when I needed them. I also found my non-compensatory goals were more often met. On the other hand I slacked-off during down times (for my section) more often.

Wasn't Tony the guy who wanted Linux instead of Mac OS X for the iphone though (it was him vs Scott)? If so I guess Scott was at least right on one thing for sure.

Tony Faddel wanted iPod OS as the OS for the phone and Scott Forstall wanted a scaled down version of OS X, Scott Forstall won that battle, which has turned out to be the way to go. Imagine the iPod OS being used Ha..Ha..would have been a disaster for Apple much bigger than a satellite map image or Siri not answering a question.

I think Cook is doing the right thing by getting rid of people like Forstall. It is very bad for the company culture to have people like him there. When people do not enjoy the people around them it causes conflicts which ultimately affect business. Having a person like him in a power position like that was asking for trouble. Which I think is one of the reasons maps had so many issues.

I'm not so sure about that. Even if it makes for a difficult work environment some companies do well when there is a lot of internal competition.

Forstall was at NeXT with Jobs, came with him to Apple, and did some pretty good with on the iOS... it could be that someone like Jobs was able to manage him better than Tim Cook was able to (e.g. Forstall might have had a very healthy respect for Jobs and not so much for Cook).

Interestingly there have been a number of psychological studies saying that people work better in some types of poor conditions (some people definitely work better under a certain level of stress for example, although there are diminishing returns when that stress-load exceeds their tolerance of it). There are also studies that say working in too "nice" an environment actually reduces productivity. So I don't think Forstall being a jerk was the reason they fired him, jerks *can* get things done, even if they do it in a more Machiavellian way. I think he got fired (correctly) because he royally fucked-up with iOS Maps. I think it sends the proper message that anyone working at Apple can (and will be) held accountable. I wish the government and major banks/investment companies worked the same way, but apparently they don't.

It also points to Cook's style as a manager. I think his style is to support his staff, rather than challenge them at every turn (which was Job's). It remains to be seen if this will work better at Apple or not. I can saying having worked in both environments I enjoyed the "support" style better and found it easier to get my job done and easier to get coordinated resources allocated when I needed them. I also found my non-compensatory goals were more often met. On the other hand I slacked-off during down times (for my section) more often.

Look at the other companies that Apple is in competition with getting the job done doesn't always mean holding hands and being nice, someone has to be the smart bad guy and crack the whip. If Apples amazing execution over the last 15 years took smart people and head knocking so what, Tony Faddel has over 40 million dollars in Apple stock he can talk to Dr. Phil if his head hurts.

When you don't get along with your fellow executives, that's probably a good thing for the company. When your employees celebrate your departure, you were failing as a manager.

So OS X, iOS (best in class) out the door when so many over companies are failing at the same thing (Rim, HP, or Nokia), is a bad thing, maybe some people are happy because now they don't have produce on time for their vast sums of money.

I'm not so sure about that. Even if it makes for a difficult work environment some companies do well when there is a lot of internal competition.

Internal competition, when managed appropriately is a good thing. Internal contention eventually leads to internal combustion and while it might be pretty to watch from the outside, it puts a damper on your enjoyment if you had a stake in the now-burning ship.

...I think he got fired (correctly) because he royally fucked-up with iOS Maps...

AND refused to come on board with the public apology and self-flagellation. If he'd signed the apology and taken the attitude "the users are right, we could have done better, let's redouble our efforts", then he might still be there.

I think Cook is doing the right thing by getting rid of people like Forstall. It is very bad for the company culture to have people like him there. When people do not enjoy the people around them it causes conflicts which ultimately affect business. Having a person like him in a power position like that was asking for trouble. Which I think is one of the reasons maps had so many issues.

I'm not so sure about that. Even if it makes for a difficult work environment some companies do well when there is a lot of internal competition.

Forstall was at NeXT with Jobs, came with him to Apple, and did some pretty good with on the iOS... it could be that someone like Jobs was able to manage him better than Tim Cook was able to (e.g. Forstall might have had a very healthy respect for Jobs and not so much for Cook).

Interestingly there have been a number of psychological studies saying that people work better in some types of poor conditions (some people definitely work better under a certain level of stress for example, although there are diminishing returns when that stress-load exceeds their tolerance of it). There are also studies that say working in too "nice" an environment actually reduces productivity. So I don't think Forstall being a jerk was the reason they fired him, jerks *can* get things done, even if they do it in a more Machiavellian way. I think he got fired (correctly) because he royally fucked-up with iOS Maps. I think it sends the proper message that anyone working at Apple can (and will be) held accountable. I wish the government and major banks/investment companies worked the same way, but apparently they don't.

It also points to Cook's style as a manager. I think his style is to support his staff, rather than challenge them at every turn (which was Job's). It remains to be seen if this will work better at Apple or not. I can saying having worked in both environments I enjoyed the "support" style better and found it easier to get my job done and easier to get coordinated resources allocated when I needed them. I also found my non-compensatory goals were more often met. On the other hand I slacked-off during down times (for my section) more often.

In the 12 years, when Steve Jobs was not at Apple holding hands and feeling good kept the Copland OS from being finished which led to the asshole (SJ with Next OS) coming back, if Tim Cook style is to be like John Sculley or Gilbert Amelio good luck Apple.

Wasn't Tony the guy who wanted Linux instead of Mac OS X for the iphone though (it was him vs Scott)? If so I guess Scott was at least right on one thing for sure.

Tony Faddel wanted iPod OS as the OS for the phone and Scott Forstall wanted a scaled down version of OS X, Scott Forstall won that battle, which has turned out to be the way to go. Imagine the iPod OS being used Ha..Ha..would have been a disaster for Apple much bigger than a satellite map image or Siri not answering a question.

Do you have any citation for that?

We saw, for example, early in 2003 or 2003 iPad prototypes that clearly would not be using the iPod OS. Jobs is even noted to have had seen 'rubber banding' on said tablet prior to approving the iPhone project.

What you propose would mean that the iPhone, had Fadell tried to push the iPod OS in 2003 would have had to have been based on the grayscale iPod of 2003.

...I think he got fired (correctly) because he royally fucked-up with iOS Maps...

AND refused to come on board with the public apology and self-flagellation. If he'd signed the apology and taken the attitude "the users are right, we could have done better, let's redouble our efforts", then he might still be there.

You mean Geeks in the bubble are right, since when has anything Apple done in the last 15 years have the Tech press or Geeks on board at the beginning. Tim Cook is giving early signs that he will listen to focus groups before making a decision ala Steve Ballmer.

Look at the other companies that Apple is in competition with getting the job done doesn't always mean holding hands and being nice, someone has to be the smart bad guy and crack the whip.

That is Cook's job; hence the firing of Forstall and Williamson. He was the 'bad guy'.

Quote:

If Apples amazing execution over the last 15 years took smart people and head knocking so what, Tony Faddel has over 40 million dollars in Apple stock he can talk to Dr. Phil if his head hurts.

Yes, and part of said amazing execution involved Cook's supply chain wizardry, Ive's design, Fadell's management of the iPod, Cue's management of the iTunes Store, Mansfield's engineering design, and of course the plumbing of the OS itself from Forstall and Services from Williamson.

You cannot say Forstall or Williamson were more important than the other members; they all played integral roles in the success of Apple.

It would make sense that if Forstall was hurting the team that he would be let go.

...I think he got fired (correctly) because he royally fucked-up with iOS Maps...

AND refused to come on board with the public apology and self-flagellation. If he'd signed the apology and taken the attitude "the users are right, we could have done better, let's redouble our efforts", then he might still be there.

You mean Geeks in the bubble are right, since when has anything Apple done in the last 15 years have the Tech press or Geeks on board at the beginning. Tim Cook is giving early signs that he will listen to focus groups before making a decision ala Steve Ballmer.

I would rather he not be Steve Ballmer. Ballmer's watch has produced the Zune, Kin, and Courier, as examples. He's not exactly the person to emulate.

Cook has a strong track record of execution (his entire career at Apple!), and the interim iPad 3 smacks strongly of it, as well as the decision to release a slightly underpowered iPad mini.

So long as the next iPad is thinner and the next iPad mini is Retina, I think Cook is doing fine.

As for Fadell's own take on a hardware keyboard? He told the audience tonight that he himself knew the potential of virtual keyboards, and personally wanted to wait to implement one before going with the hardware option. Fadell worked on the iPhone up until the 3GS

From the second linke:

Quote:

Fadell confirms Apple never made a keyboard for it. The issue was "definitely discussed," he says, but nothing was ever made into a prototype.

It appears he himself wanted the virtual keyboard.

From the second link:

Quote:

At any rate, says Fadell, Apple was open to anything. "Sometimes you have to try things in order to throw it away,"

You're reading things that don't exist. Fadell didn't lose anything; he worked on the iPhone, iPhone 3G, and iPhone 3GS.

I think Cook is doing the right thing by getting rid of people like Forstall. It is very bad for the company culture to have people like him there. When people do not enjoy the people around them it causes conflicts which ultimately affect business. Having a person like him in a power position like that was asking for trouble. Which I think is one of the reasons maps had so many issues.

I'm not so sure about that. Even if it makes for a difficult work environment some companies do well when there is a lot of internal competition.

Forstall was at NeXT with Jobs, came with him to Apple, and did some pretty good with on the iOS... it could be that someone like Jobs was able to manage him better than Tim Cook was able to (e.g. Forstall might have had a very healthy respect for Jobs and not so much for Cook).

Interestingly there have been a number of psychological studies saying that people work better in some types of poor conditions (some people definitely work better under a certain level of stress for example, although there are diminishing returns when that stress-load exceeds their tolerance of it). There are also studies that say working in too "nice" an environment actually reduces productivity. So I don't think Forstall being a jerk was the reason they fired him, jerks *can* get things done, even if they do it in a more Machiavellian way. I think he got fired (correctly) because he royally fucked-up with iOS Maps. I think it sends the proper message that anyone working at Apple can (and will be) held accountable. I wish the government and major banks/investment companies worked the same way, but apparently they don't.

It also points to Cook's style as a manager. I think his style is to support his staff, rather than challenge them at every turn (which was Job's). It remains to be seen if this will work better at Apple or not. I can saying having worked in both environments I enjoyed the "support" style better and found it easier to get my job done and easier to get coordinated resources allocated when I needed them. I also found my non-compensatory goals were more often met. On the other hand I slacked-off during down times (for my section) more often.

Look at the other companies that Apple is in competition with getting the job done doesn't always mean holding hands and being nice, someone has to be the smart bad guy and crack the whip. If Apples amazing execution over the last 15 years took smart people and head knocking so what, Tony Faddel has over 40 million dollars in Apple stock he can talk to Dr. Phil if his head hurts.

But getting the job done doesn't necessarily mean NOT holding hands or "cracking the whip" at people. You can get the job done by being supportive as well. Although I would agree someone needs to be smart...and there are plenty of people at Apple who are smart and dedicated. For instance, in the above mentioned "support" style company I worked for I always had a mentor (which is "holding hands"), that was an incredibly useful resource for me and allowed me to grow exponentially while I was there (in fact I surprised myself and them both). On the other hand, in the challenging setting I worked well too, but mainly because I work better/faster under some stress, but I burned out and left too, so that company lost my productivity (and sure replaced it with someone else they probably burnt out too). Being "the bad guy" isn't necessarily the correct management style all the time. Look at Ballmer, the ultimate in "bad guy" management style, he's been running Microsoft into the ground for years now, (although in slow motion because MS also had lots of great talent and, arguably, he isn't the "smart" bad guy either - IMO Gates was far smarter).

Didn't Apple fire a guy before that didn't play well with others? Oh, what was his name? What was his name; wait... Didn't he also come back and take them to new heights of a company success story and all of his overbearing social mannerisms just written off as an idiosyncratic quirk of his charisma???

This guy (Forstall) started at next with Steve Jobs and I'm sure this long-standing relationship with Jobs probably influenced his personality and the manner in which he conducted business. He may have subconsciously trying to emulate the man... perhaps even consciously trying to do so, or both. I'd be going to go out on a limb and say he also probably felt he had one over on the other SVP's because he had been with Jobs for so long which was probably one of the biggest frictions between him and the other SVP's. As Steve Jobs' health declined I'd go out even further on that limb and assume that he was preening himself to be next in line to take the helm. When it became apparent that this was not likely to be the case, I'm sure that soured his disposition even further towards the others to the point of an untenable situation.

Of course this is all mostly guess-work. It's also entirely plausible he's just a born A-hole.

Didn't Apple fire a guy before that didn't play well with others? Oh, what was his name? What was his name; wait... Didn't he also come back and take them to new heights of a company success story and all of his overbearing social mannerisms just written off as an idiosyncratic quirk of his charisma???

Didn't Apple need saving in 1996?

Quote:

This guy (Forstall) started at next with Steve Jobs and I'm sure this long-standing relationship with Jobs probably influenced his personality and the manner in which he conducted business. He may have subconsciously trying to emulate the man... perhaps even consciously trying to do so, or both. I'd be going to go out on a limb and say he also probably felt he had one over on the other SVP's because he had been with Jobs for so long which was probably one of the biggest frictions between him and the other SVP's. As Steve Jobs' health declined I'd go out even further on that limb and assume that he was preening himself to be next in line to take the helm. When it became apparent that this was not likely to be the case, I'm sure that soured his disposition even further towards the others to the point of an untenable situation.

Of course this is all mostly guess-work. It's also entirely plausible he's just a born A-hole.

Yep, that's exactly what I meant by that statement. Forstall isn't exactly without his successes; iOS seems to be kind of a big deal. It's entirely possible they may have to bring him back at later date. Not every product Steve Jobs sponsored was without imperfections either.

It just seems odd to me that the same people that would put Jobs on a pedestal would also vilify a man exhibiting similar traits. I guess we just live in a more polarized black & white world of all or nothing nowadays.

Yep, that's exactly what I meant by that statement. Forstall isn't exactly without his successes; iOS seems to be kind of a big deal. It's entirely possible they may have to bring him back at later date. Not every product Steve Jobs sponsored was without imperfections either.

The difference is that Jobs was capable of being the man needed for Apple in 1997 and the man in 2010, while it appears Forstall was not.

Don't forget that Cook, Ives, Fadell, et al also worked alongside Jobs (without issue? who knows) and could stomach him.

Evidently Forstall was no Jobs.

Quote:

It just seems odd to me that the same people that would put Jobs on a pedestal would also vilify a man exhibiting similar traits. I guess we just live in a more polarized black & white world of all or nothing nowadays.

I guess I'm just a gray-area contrarian.

Yes, and I don't think it's relevant.

If Forstall was revolutionary like Jobs, he also needed to be apologetic too.

Evidently he wasn't. If you want to be measured against a man, you need to measure up in all ways.